When someone shares with you something of value, you have an obligation to share it with others.
Monday, 30 November 2009
Appeal dismissed: Trading ‘expert’ must refund $176,583
The High Court yesterday upheld the decision of the Small Claims Tribunal that self-styled trading expert Clemen Chiang has to give out refunds totalling $176,583 to 48 people who attended his seminars.
Appeal dismissed: Trading ‘expert’ must refund $176,583
By Selina Lum 27 November 2009
Self-styled trading ‘expert’ Clemen Chiang had been running his seminars for a few years.
The High Court yesterday upheld the decision of the Small Claims Tribunal that self-styled trading expert Clemen Chiang has to give out refunds totalling $176,583 to 48 people who attended his seminars.
Justice Woo Bih Li did not give any reason as he dismissed the appeal brought by Mr. Chiang’s company, Freely, against the tribunal’s decision in March.
The 48 people had lodged claims against Freely, asking for refunds for a three-day options trading course it ran. They had each paid between $3,495 and $3,995 for the course. Some of them bought a software program for $960.
They said they had signed up because of Mr. Chiang’s PhD in options trading. But in August last year, they found out through a Straits Times report that his doctorate was from the unaccredited Preston University in Alabama, regarded by American education authorities as a ‘degree supplier’ offering ‘fraudulent or sub-standard degrees’.
In March, the tribunal ruled that Mr. Chiang had misrepresented his qualifications and ordered Freely to refund each of the 48 claimants 80 per cent of the course fees and the full price of the software.
Mr. Chiang, 35, a Nanyang Technological University engineering graduate, has been running these seminars for a few years. To date, more than 400 other claims have been lodged. These were put on hold pending the outcome of Freely’s appeal to the High Court.
At the hearing yesterday, Freely’s lawyer, Senior Counsel Giam Chin Toon, argued that it was not given a fair hearing as the referee of the tribunal, Mr. Earnest Lau, was biased against Mr. Chiang.
The lawyer argued that Mr. Lau made sarcastic remarks during the hearing and appeared to have made up his mind before it was over.
Yesterday, one of the claimants, marketing manager Terence Tan, 41, said it was a fair judgment even though they could not get a full refund. He said this served as an example to others not to use dodgy credentials to boost business.
1 comment:
Appeal dismissed: Trading ‘expert’ must refund $176,583
By Selina Lum
27 November 2009
Self-styled trading ‘expert’ Clemen Chiang had been running his seminars for a few years.
The High Court yesterday upheld the decision of the Small Claims Tribunal that self-styled trading expert Clemen Chiang has to give out refunds totalling $176,583 to 48 people who attended his seminars.
Justice Woo Bih Li did not give any reason as he dismissed the appeal brought by Mr. Chiang’s company, Freely, against the tribunal’s decision in March.
The 48 people had lodged claims against Freely, asking for refunds for a three-day options trading course it ran. They had each paid between $3,495 and $3,995 for the course. Some of them bought a software program for $960.
They said they had signed up because of Mr. Chiang’s PhD in options trading. But in August last year, they found out through a Straits Times report that his doctorate was from the unaccredited Preston University in Alabama, regarded by American education authorities as a ‘degree supplier’ offering ‘fraudulent or sub-standard degrees’.
In March, the tribunal ruled that Mr. Chiang had misrepresented his qualifications and ordered Freely to refund each of the 48 claimants 80 per cent of the course fees and the full price of the software.
Mr. Chiang, 35, a Nanyang Technological University engineering graduate, has been running these seminars for a few years. To date, more than 400 other claims have been lodged. These were put on hold pending the outcome of Freely’s appeal to the High Court.
At the hearing yesterday, Freely’s lawyer, Senior Counsel Giam Chin Toon, argued that it was not given a fair hearing as the referee of the tribunal, Mr. Earnest Lau, was biased against Mr. Chiang.
The lawyer argued that Mr. Lau made sarcastic remarks during the hearing and appeared to have made up his mind before it was over.
Yesterday, one of the claimants, marketing manager Terence Tan, 41, said it was a fair judgment even though they could not get a full refund. He said this served as an example to others not to use dodgy credentials to boost business.
Post a Comment